I can't read the article because it's such obstinate bullshit.
It doesn't pass on debt, but it does gobble up any assets you may hope to pass on as inheritance. You can't inherit debt (yet) but debt must be paid off from the estate before anything else.
Tales from the Crypt, man that takes me back.
Apparently you're talking about S03E10 Mournin' Mess.
Edit: Damn lol I remembered this as a kids' show, starts with fuck, shit, and titties!
Just legality.
The legality was only ever a grey area. Their days may be numbered, however. During the lockdowns they removed the one physical copy per digital copy lent, and as a result of that they got sued. Instead of settling out of court they drummed up donations to a legal fund and lost hard, and during the trial a judge ruled that their practice was illegal. In my opinion, they should have done everything they could have to settle out of court, rather than try and build a frivilous defense that had no grounding in law.
Right now, they're appealing it, so I guess that's why it's still up. However it looks like their strategy isn't any better now than it was then.
But hey, their laywer's getting paid.
Yes, a civil case in NY, in which a jury ruled that Trump had committed sexual assault.
The fun part is that, while sexual assault is a crime and a court has ruled he did that, he's still not actually convicted of the crime of sexual assault - we can say it's more than 50% likely he did it, but we can't quite say it's more than 99%.
It's a bit like OJ Simpson, who got off on the criminal murder charge, but then lost the civil case for killing. Except in this case there was no criminal trial.
Exactly. We can't address these nuanced issues without actually discussing them openly.
IMO, US federal law is right - rape doesn't need to involve a penis to be rape. NY and UK law are wrong, as they imply a woman cannot rape a man, or that a woman cannot rape another woman, or that a man isn't raping a woman when he doesn't use his penis.
I think rape should be seen as any sort of involuntary sexual penetration, with any thing. Rape is a form of sexual assault, but sexual assault also includes lesser offenses such as flashing.
Convicting a rapist for what could be viewed as a lesser offense isn't really sufficient.
Yes, that's what I said. The judge said it was rape (under federal law), while the jury said it was not (under NY law, which is the same as UK law here).
How is it off topic to highlight that NY isn't alone in its legal definition of rape?
It also didn't happen in the UK, so even with a penis it wouldn't meet the criteria.
No, it happened in NY, which happens to have a somewhat similar legal definition of rape requiring penetration with the penis - per the article.
He was convicted in NY of sexual assault with his fingers, but the jury stopped short of a rape conviction involving his penis. If the same reasoning had been made in a UK court, then he would have had the same conviction.
They're only liable for the debt so long as the business is operational, though. If the business folds, all the debt goes with it.
The point I'm making is that, while the decisions Musk has made since buying it have only made the business worse, ultimately the reason it's going to fail is the huge amount of debt, which is primarily from the leveraged buyout. If anything, Musk's antics are nothing but those of a clown trying to distract from and give plausible deniability against the real evil that's happening.